ted总结简短英文

感谢大家周末来到西北书城，和我们一起见证TED中山桥的第一次活动！ 我们本次的TED介绍，从TED简介，影响力，TED使命，知名讲者四个维度进行介绍。 首先给大家介绍一下TED具指的是什么， TED 中的T-technology 科技，； E- Entertainment，娱乐，。 D-Design 设计。 TED国际大会第一次是由美国的建筑师，平面设计师——Richard先生1990年在美国常春藤学校发起的大牛们分享自己思想的大会。 2001年，由媒体大亨——安德森买下，进行全球传播，可是每年举办一次，影响力远远不够。 2005年，出现了TED Global：即在全球各地进行巡回演讲。有点像咱现在的奥运会，每几年，在一个地方举行自己无比盛大的会议。即使这样，对于扩大影响力，传播有价值的思想还是有局限性。 2009年，各地的TED粉丝自发组织TED风格的活动——Tedx，TED活动开始全球快速发展，并在全世界获得广泛的关注量。 二、TED影响力 先做个小调查：现场的小伙伴，都有谁曾经听过TED ？举手示意一下。 好的，谢谢大家！ TED为什么这么有名？ 覆盖190个国家，有350+的线上播放量，是全球最大的演讲平台； 每月都会有600万次的点击量，在190多个国家有超过2万次的活动；曾跟100多个品牌合作过； 2010年进入中国后，优酷作为官方播放平台也有114万的粉丝； TED的Slogan，也是TED使命“传播一切值得传播的思想”，在具体解释这句slogan之前，我想和大家分享这句话背后的故事。 2001年，安德森刚接手TED时，自己经营的公司刚刚倒闭，TED影响力随着创始人理查德先生离开而减弱，安德森竭尽全力宣传招募，最终只有70人报名参加，在那次大会上，安德森发自肺腑的对台下的观众说：“自己刚刚遭受了巨大的商业破产，认为自己是一个彻底的失败者。我的精神之所以没有崩溃，唯一的方式就是让自己沉浸在思想的世界里。TED就是我的世界－－这是一个独特的地方，来自不同学科领域的思想在这里获得分享，我将尽我所能去呵护思想的崇高价值。无论如何，大会为我们带来了深刻的启迪与宝贵的知识”； 安德森演讲结束后，短短几秒钟的时间内，似乎TED大家庭集体做出决定，他们会支持TED书写新的篇章！ 这就TED在全球传播开来之前的故事，因为创始人对传播思想的价值拥有无比坚定的信念及虔诚，所以在TED起初的生死攸关的紧要关头，让TED得以延续。 现在我们再看TED的口号“传播一切值得传播的思想”，是不是有了新的感悟呢。 接下来给我们一起解析下这句Slogan里三个要素。 讲了这么多，TED上具体上过哪些讲者呢？ 比尔.盖茨 、比尔·克林顿、英国动物学家珍妮·古道尔、等等 以上就是对TED的全部介绍，想必大家对TED有了一定的认识和了解，虽然TEDx和TED是平行的两个活动，他们具体有什么不同呢？ 这将由我们后面的小伙伴们，为大家解密了！

Ihave spent the last years, trying to resolve two enigmas: why is productivity so disappointing in all the companies where I work? I have worked with more than 500 companies. Despite all the technological advance – computers, IT, communications, telecommunications, the internet. Enigma number two: why is there so little engagement at work? Why do people feel so miserable, even actively disengaged? Disengaged their colleagues. Acting against the interest of their company. Despite all the affiliation events, the celebration, the people initiatives, the leadership development programs to train managers on how to better motivate their teams. At the beginning, I thought there was a chicken and egg issue: because people are less engaged, they are less productive. Or vice versa, because they are less productive, we put more pressure and they are less engaged. But as we were doing our analysis we realized that there was a common root cause to these two issues that relates, in fact, to the basic pillars of management. The way we organize is based on two pillars. The hard—structure, processes, systems. The soft—feeling, sentiments, interpersonal relationship, traits, personality. And whenever a company reorganizes, restructures, reengineers, goes through a cultural transformation program, it chooses these two pillars. Now we try to refine them, we try to combine them. The real issue is – and this is the answer to the two enigmas – these pillar are obsolete. Everything you read in business books is based either two of the other or their combine. They are obsolete. How do they work when you try to use these approaches in front of the new complexity of business? The hard approach, basically is that you start from strategy, requirement, structure, processes, systems, KPIs, scorecards, committees, headquarters, hubs, clusters, you name it. I forgot all the metrics, incentives, committees, middle offices and interfaces. What happens basically on the left, you have more complexity, the new complexity of business. We need quality, cost, reliability, speed. And every time there is a new requirement, we use the same approach. We create dedicated structure processed systems, basically to deal with the new complexity of business. The hard approach creates just complicatedness in the organization. Let’s take an example. An automotive company, the engineering division is a five-dimensional matrix. If you open any cell of the matrix, you find another 20-dimensional matrix. You have Mr. Noise, Mr. Petrol Consumption, Mr. Anti-Collision Propertise. For any new requirement, you have a dedicated function in charge of aligning engineers against the new requirement. What happens when the new requirement emerges? Some years ago, a new requirement appeared on the marketplace: the length of the warranty period. So therefore the requirement is repairability, making cars easy to repair. Otherwise when you bring the car to the garage to fix the light, if you have to remove the engine to access the lights, the car will have to stay one week in the garage instead of two hours, and the warranty budget will explode. So, what was the solution using the hard approach? If repairability is the rew requirement, the solution is to create a new function, Mr. Repairability. And Mr. Repairability creates the repairability process. With a repairability scorecard, with a repairability metric and eventually repairability incentive.That came on top of 25 other KPIs. What percentage of these people is variable compensation? Twenty percent at most, divided by 26 KPIs, repairability makes a difference of 0.8 percent. What difference did it make in their action, their choices to simplify? Zero. But what occurs for zero impact? Mr. Repairability, process, scorecard, evaluation, coordination with the 25 other coordinators to have zero impact. Now, in front of the new complexity of business, the only solution is not drawing box es with reporting lines. It is basically the interplay. How the parts work together. The connection, the interaction, the synapse. It is not skeleton of boxes, it is the nervous system of adaptiveness and intelligence. You know, you could call it cooperation, basically. Whenever people cooperate, they use less resources. In everything. You know, the repairability issue is a cooperation problem. When you design cars, please take into account the need of those who will repair the cars in the after sales garage. When we don’t cooperate we need more time, more equipment, more system, more teams. We need – when procurement, supply chain, manufacturing don’t cooperate we need more stock, more investories, more working capital. Who will pay for that? Shareholder? Customers? No, they will refuse. So who is left? The employees, who have tocompensate through their super individual efforts for the lack of cooperation. Stress, burnout, they are overwhelmed, accidents. No wonder they disengage. How do the hard and the soft try to foster cooperation? The hard: in banks, when there is problem between the back office and the front office, they don’t cooperate. What is the solution? They create a middle office. What happens one years later? Instead of one problem between the back and front, now have to problems. Between the back and the middle and between the middle and the front. Plus I have to pay for the middle office. The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation. It can only add new boxes, new bones in the skeleton. The soft approach: to make people cooperate, we need to make then like each other. Improve interpersonal feelings, the more people laike each other, the more they will cooperate. It is totally worng. It even counterproductive. Look, at home I have two TVs. Why? Precisely not to have to cooperate with my wife. Not to have to impose tradeoffs to my wife. And why I try not to impose tradeoffs to my wife is precisely because I love my wife. If I didn’t love my wife, one TV would be enough: you will watch my favorite football game, if you are not happy, how is the book or the door? The more we like each other, the more we avoid the real cooperation that would strain our relationships by imposing tough tradeoffs. And we go for a second TV or we escalate the decision above for arbitration. Definitely, these approaches are obsolete. To deal with complexity, to enhance nervous system, we have created what we call the smart simplicity approach based on simple rules. Simple rule number one: understand what others do. What is their real work? We need go beyond the boxes, the job description, beyond the surface of the container, to understand the real content. Me, designer, if I put a wire here, I know that it will mean that we will have to remove the engine to access the lights. Second, you need to reinforce integrators.